Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 9th, 2006

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I understand Mr. Sauvageau's question. However, I would like you to clarify something for me. When witnesses answer our questions, they speak on specific cases, or points. Members of Parliament have immunity. When witnesses answer our questions, do they enjoy the same immunity that members do? When they answer a specific question, can their comments be considered evidence out of court and could they be used in a court, outside the context of this committee, in civil society? I would like to know whether the witness, in providing an answer, could engender a problem in civil society, outside the context of this committee's proceedings.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have no intention of telling the witnesses what they're going to say or what they're not going to say. It's their testimony. I'm just here to try to keep order, which is getting more and more difficult.

A point of order.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I would just like to answer Mr. Petit. Chuck Guité could tell you with confidence that parliamentary immunity-

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Through the chair, through the chair, Monsieur.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

He could tell you without any hesitation that witnesses who appear before a committee enjoy parliamentary immunity along with the members.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

Monsieur Poilievre, go ahead, please.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Sauvageau, I think, you're discussing why the integrity commissioner cannot initiate an investigation. It seems to be a very peculiar question, totally extraneous to the discussion of whistle-blowing.

The watchdog who protects whistle-blowers cannot protect a whistle-blower who doesn't blow the whistle. If there is no disclosure, there is no disclosure to investigate. So if the purpose of having a whistle-blower watchdog who investigates disclosures of wrongdoing and protects whistle-blowers who speak out, then why, in this world or the next, would he initiate an investigation when he's not heard from the whistle-blower? It seems like a totally extraneous point. The fact that he's then connected it to the need to extend the time this committee takes to pass the Accountability Act would seem even more boggling.

Finally, if he does have an amendment to that effect, we would encourage him to put it forward. No one is suggesting that he will not have the right to put forward amendments during clause-by-clause.

My question is for Mr. Wild. Is it not within the realm of your understanding of whistle-blower protection that an integrity commissioner can only investigate a disclosure that he has received and protect a whistle-blower that exists? Or can he investigate a disclosure that he has not received or, conceivably, protect a whistle-blower who does not exist?

[Joe Wild]

The scheme presented in Bill C-2 , as well as in Bill C-11, is that the Public Servant Disclosure Protection Act is about just that: it's about providing protection for public servants who come forward and make disclosures. That is the role of the commissioner. There are other bodies who have self-initiating investigative capacities, such as the Auditor General, the RCMP, and so on, who could look at other matters. As well, the government itself can initiate an investigation if it believes that there's a discipline issue, etc. at play.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

That's really not important.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's very helpful--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

A point of order, Mr. Poilievre.

No, he's got his turn.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

My time had run out.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You'll get another chance. You were on Monsieur Petit's time.

Mr. Martin, go ahead, please.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

This is a very helpful document the research staff has put together. I didn't realize why these witnesses were here, but they're actually here to talk about conflict of interest, elections financing, lobbying, and ministers' staff, so that helps me--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The staff want to say a few words just before we get all confused.

Go ahead.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm confused.

[Katherine Kirkwood, Committee Researcher]

I didn't have a chance to clarify. The clerk has distributed a briefing note that covers the first two parts of the bill. We weren't aware which witnesses were coming. There'll be a briefing note distributed later today that covers the other parts of the bill.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

So these particular witnesses are not specifically here to address these particular subjects, is that correct? Okay. I thought we were getting somewhere.

I am interested in the election financing code where it changes to elections financing.... It seems to me, the current regime is underenforced in that it's really up to the official agent to file your expense claims, and if the official agent signs off on them, the Chief Electoral Officer really does little else, even if there's a glaring oversight. The most egregious example we have is one member who spent $240,000 when their election spending limits were $78,000, but nothing has happened to that person. They're still sitting in Parliament because no one could follow up. What, in Bill C-2, would improve the administration of the election financing laws other than the limits of $1,000?

[Joe Wild]

There is another panel of witnesses that will be heard today specifically on the question of election financing. I don't want to necessarily pre-empt their discussion, but I realize you've take the time to ask the question. I would just say that Bill C-2 does present some comprehensive amendments to the Canada Elections Act, and included within that there are provisions relating to offences and so on. I think that panel will be in a better position to answer any specific questions you may have.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Is there any specific area of expertise that you guys are here for today that I should know about?

[Joe Wild]

Well....

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm really unclear. I don't know who called you as witnesses. We didn't. I didn't submit your names.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're going at it again.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm not trying to be hostile, Chair. My time is limited, and it hasn't been helpful that we learn, by surprise, who the witnesses are. The briefing note I get is clearly not about these particular witnesses, and I'm getting frustrated, I guess, at the pace and how this committee is going.